We aren't making pot roast, we're making PULLED PORK dammit. No wrap needed. Unwrapped the bark turns into lovely, crispy chewy pork candy. Don't you want pork candy?(On the other hand I get yelled at because I always use a pan with pulled pork to catch that nectar of the Gods jus. Put through fat separator, add a little red pepper flake, squirt over assembled sandwich. SO DAMN GOOD.)

My guess is that for pulled pork, served blind I could easily tell the difference between wrapped and unwrapped bark (Unwrapped is way better) but the difference in the main muscles would be vanishingly small. Pork butt is a large, moist, forgiving meat.

I have PS Vue and use Fox Sports Go all the time using the login -- sometimes the login page is screwed up and Playstation Vue is not listed alphabetically. I also use it for the ESPN app and the NBCsn app.

This is a malt whiskey, made from Barley as primary grain, so it's not going to taste like a bourbon. It's going to taste more like a Scotch. In Texas, the retail price is more like $65 to $70. Also, their claim of the original Texas whisky is just bullshit marketing; they were not the 1st.

As far as I know their Baby Blue was the first Texas distilled whisky sold in Texas post prohibition-- the only other one in the running is Garrison Brothers, who I think distilled first but did not sell first, is that incorrect?

Garrison definitely distilled first and they released a very small batch, I think around 600 bottles, when it 1 year old in 375 ml bottles. I thought that was the 1st Texas grain to glass whiskey sold. I heard Donnis Todd the master distiller at GB tell the story of Chip Tate visiting GB and mention he was going to open up a whiskey distillery.

Cayenne peppers are not particularly hot (50K Scoville), but to start with, just soak some in water (If you are using dried) to soften and dice nice and fine, leaving seeds in and add it directly to the onion/garlic/ginger mixture. If that is not enough you may want to look at adding some hotter peppers at the same point. Habaneros (350K scoville) should work well. There are many other hot peppers you can use for the same effect, some of which are extremely hot! See here for ideas: https://pepperheadsforlife.com/the-scoville-scale/

I can never do St. Louis and Baby Backs together, St. Louis always take at least 90 minutes longer to cook, often 2 hours longer. I much prefer St. Louis after many rounds of ribs -- but if they aren't cooked long enough they are unappetizing for sure. How did you account for the difference in cooking times?

Most people mean "policies and positions defined by racial/gender identities rather than citizenship." That is, the only reason the policy or position exists is for the express purpose of furthering or helping a particular identity of race or gender.

The movement is, essentially, an attempt to transfer power from those who have it, to those who don't have it. There are three main reasons why people oppose this and use the term "identity politics" as a negative:

They simply don't think the power should be given up, because minorities/others don't deserve it or because they haven't "earned" it. White nationalists fall into this category. As would the more radical "meninist" groups (maybe red pill but I don't know enough about them to be sure). Black Panthers would fit into this category if there had ever been a time when black people in America had a majority of power.

They don't believe that power inequality actually exists in the first place. Many who claim this are just #1 masquerading their true beliefs in a more socially acceptable way. However there are still a lot of Americans, especially from older generations who grew up in small towns, who legitimately don't understand that the inequality exists because they have zero experience of it. It should be noted that some perceived inequalities are sometimes overstated. The most extensive recent study of police violence (by a black Harvard professor of Afro-centric studies) showed that black men were slightly less likely than white or Hispanic men to be fatally shot. However they were 2-3 times more likely to face rough or improper treatment at the hands of police. It bears out the personal accounts from black people all over the country of police mistreatment, but it also tells us that the epidemic of black men killed by police is an epidemic of media coverage rather than statistics.

They agree there is power inequality, but they do not think a direct transfer of power is the right way to go about fixing the problem. And this particular debate goes all the way back to Booker T. Washington and W.E.B DuBois over 100 years ago. There is always a tug of war between forceful and passive resolution. MLK Jr. notably walked this line remarkably well, which is why he was such a unifying leader. He advocated nonviolent protest but felt great compassion for his brothers and sisters who rioted even if he did not directly support their actions. He astutely realized that one great power of boycotts is that they equalize citizens: I am just as much of a purchaser as you are. My choice to spend $10 is equal to any white person choosing to spend $10. Philosophically this is a key difference from identity politics which seeks to establish direct advantages for particular identities.

I honestly don't know which approach is better because I've never had to deal with inequality myself. I'd like to think passive is better philosophically, but practically I must realize that people don't like to give up power once they have it.

All that to say that "identity politics" opponents run a wide range, some with legit complaints and some just wanting to keep their world the same.

1) Dr. Roland Fryer is NOT a professor of Afro-centric studies, he is the Henry Lee Professor of Economics in the Economics department. Why would you assert this?

2) The paper you are referencing, "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force∗" which is a draft paper, and to my knowledge has not yet been peer reviewed does not support the bolded conclusion that you have drawn, and in fact may strongly contradict it. The study looked at likelihood of certain outcomes once a police stop had been initiated in those instances black men were about 20% less likely to be shot than white men. However -- the huge confounding variable in this is that black men were 2 TIMES more likely to be stopped by police than white men even though the instance of finding contraband was less than 3% of those stops. So if black men were stopped by police twice as often as white men would have been, subject to all forms of non-shooting violence at a significantly higher rates once stopped, but shot 20% less of the time from that point on -- is it really fair to draw the conclusions that you have drawn?

I think it's quite fair. It's not a confounding variable to say black men were more likely to be stopped. In fact, if black men are more likely to be stopped, it's remarkable to note that this bias did not extend to the use of lethal force. That despite more frequent stops, the rate of lethal force was similar.

So yes, my conclusions hold up. Police are not more likely to shoot black men when they are stopped, as we are led to believe by media reports. And I specifically made the point that the increased non fatal police violence to black men, is corroborative of what black people have reported anecdotally for many years. Both those points are corroborated by data.

Now, if you want to dispute on the grounds of total number of events, I think that's a fair point. There are some confounding variables in that discussion, mainly that total stops might be skewed by black people's lower overall socioeconomic status (i.e. living in lower income areas and driving cheaper cars means more likely to be stopped). It doesn't account for a twofold increase, but it surely mitigates it some. I would maintain that the rate of fatal violence is the more valuable data, but I can't say your point is wrong or unfounded.

I do apologize for incorrectly stating Dr. Fryer's field. I really remembered it that way, probably because I read the study and assumed that was his field because of the subject matter.

If black men are stopped at twice the rate, at shot at the same rate once stopped, black men run twice the risk of being shot, along with more than twice the risk of encountering all other forms of police violence. How do those facts comport with your claim that "it also tells us that the epidemic of black men killed by police is an epidemic of media coverage rather than statistics"? You do not specify in your claim that the epidemic can only be considered in context of outcomes once a police stop has been started. You make a broad claim that there is no epidemic.
The rate of fatal violence and the judgement of an epidemic must surely be considered against the total likelihood of encountering this, rather than isolating the likelihood once a police encounter has started. Is there a threshold of rate of police stops followed by the same rate of shootings that you would agree would constitute a serious issue? If instead of twice as likely, black men were 10 times as likely to be stopped, and then the same statistics as above proceeded, would you conceded then that there was an issue with police shooting black men?

I have a couple of bottles of this on my shelf, and have really enjoyed it. I get the pickle note, plus anise and a little cinnamon. I think this is going to be really special when it gets a little older.